On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I'd just like to reiterate some of the arguments for making reification
> a built-in feature (possibly as an optional layer):
>
> - in M&S, reified statements need to have a URI. It looks like they
> should be unique, but nobody wants to deal with uniqueness, but still
> some sort of URIs need to be assigned, so we end up having to deal with
> different URIs denoting the same statement etc.
I don't understand "need to have a URI" here. RDF M&S allows us to
describe lots of things that don't have URIs (though they may in-principle
be namable with URIs...). Can you explain the sense in which reified
statements "need" to have a URI? Or "have" for that matter: do you mean
that we can't represent reified statements without assigning a URI to
them?
Dan